>>>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=C1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The courts don't have the common decency or enough balls to do what is right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I predict some well deserved fatalities on the Westboro side shortly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>FWIW, while I detest Westboro's behavior, I think the court ruled correctly in this case. It's not free speech unless we protect the right to say things we hate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry Tamar, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Their message is hate. If their message were aimed at Jews instead of Homosexuals, would it still be detestable but acceptable? It would not. Nor should it be. Nor would the courts allow it. Spreading hate is spreading hate, even if the target is homosexuals.
>>>>>
>>>>>Spreading hate is legal if all you do is talk. It may be hateful, but it's free speech that the government can't regulate. The people can react in ways that make it a mistake to say it, that is, by walking away, withhold their dollars, etc. We can show contempt in our treatment of these people (though I think for this particular group, the best way to respond is to ignore them; they thrive on attention).
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>Ok, I guess I assumed it was the same in the US as in Canada. Hate speech is illegal here if it is aimed at an identifiable group - unless the group is white males, of course ;)
>>>>
>>>>Please, please, please, note the smilie.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with Canadian policy. Hate mongering is dangerous behaviour and should be watched very closely and if it does appear to present a danger to some group, it should be silenced. It's far too easy to wring one's hands and wail after the damage is done. Far harder (politically, anyway) to suck it up and do something about it up front.
>>>
>>>As soon as speech crosses the line to incitement to violence, it's illegal. But speech by itself is and should be protected, no matter how hateful. It was Supreme Court justice Brandeis who said "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>So then, where is that line? To me, carrying signs that say, "Thank God for dead soldiers", and "Pray for more dead soldiers" is incitement to violence. These sentiments appeal to morons, and morons are quite happy to get a gun and kill somebody on what they've been led to believe is God's say-so. Or does it only become incitement to violence after somebody acts on it and commits murder? Seems a little late for a decision to me.
>
>Where the line is is a good question. I don't think marching with those signs is over the line, as reprehensible as I find it. Now if the sign said "Follow me to make more dead soldiers," that would be incitement. I think it's about action vs. thought or word.
>
>If "Pray for more dead soldiers" were incitement, wouldn't something like "This country would be better off if so-and-so were dead" be incitement? Would we want the latter statement to be illegal?
>
>I see a difference between my made-up sentence and something like "Let's make this country better by killing so-and-so." That one is incitement.
>
>Tamar

The differences are too small for me. If one person goes out of his way to carry out the implied dictate, it will belatedly be seen as having been incitement, but it will be too late. One ought not to be able to hide behind "free speech" simply by playing with semantics.

The implications here are clear. They want more dead soldiers. And why? The U.S. allows homosexuals to live among you. Ergo, they also want some dead homosexuals. Some idiot somewhere will be willing to see to those little problems for them.

Simply because they are targeting a group, they get away with it. If they were targeting an individual, they could be sued. This is not right. The law will protect an individual. Who protects a group?